I don't know, maybe they are trying to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies and consequently abortions by having insurance provide birth control with no co pay. Seems like a good idea to me.

It sounds like a good idea in theory. However, condoms are free in many places right now and there are still unwanted pregnancies. I haven't read too deeply into this issue, but from my own experiences with teenage friends, unwanted pregnancies resulted from lack of education and a theory that "it would never happen to me" coupled with "we'll be together forever."

I honestly feel as though America is becoming a nation of self-entitlement and irresponsibility in many ways. There's no accountability anymore. And with the numerous other scary issues we face as a nation, this isn't exactly what I would rate as a "top issue."

OK. And if you smoke you should pay for your own lung surgery and your own chemo. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and become overweight, you should pay for your own diabetes medication, your own heart medication, your own depression medication, your own arthritis medication, and/or your own asthma medication. If you eat a diet high in sodium and choose a high stress career, you should pay for your own high blood pressure medication. Right?

He's the difference - babies aren't diseases. I know, I know, it's fetus, not a baby. And we mom's all know that. We would never dream of calling OUR children people until they're born, because before that they're just blobs of cells and stuff.
Personally I've refer to both of my sons as my "baby" as soon as knew I was pregnant. I didn't wait to make sure that what was indeed kicking around in my uterus. And I can't believe that other peoples babies aren't babies unless they're wanted, planned and prepared for. I can't say "I wanted to have this baby, therefore a baby is what it is, however you are in no position to get pregnant thus your baby is simply not a baby."
We can't define a person's human-ness by whether or not their life is convenient, inside or outside the womb.

Condoms really are THE thing to use from a cost saving standpoint. They are not expensive. They prevent pregnancy which is a big medical cost followed by an entire new person to insure. They also prevent STDs/STIs (pick your preferred letters) which cost a big chunk of change.

Call me a prude, but if you think you are responsible enough to have sex then you should be responsible enough to pay for your birth control, right? Even without health insurance, there are places you can get free condoms.

Off-topic I know, but this is what disturbs me. The politicians who are waging this war against birth control coverage, or birth control in general, are the same ones who want to do away with places like Planned Parenthood. Yes, if I can't afford birth control and the government doesn't want to force insurance companies to cover it, I can go to Planned Parenthood. Except if these politicians had their way, there wouldn't be any Planned Parenthood either. It is this bigger war on women that worries me. If you can't afford birth control and your insurance doesn't cover it and then politicians cut all funding for Planned Parenthood, well what options are left? And I guess you could say just don't have sex, but we all know that won't happen. So instead there will be more abortions, or more kids in foster care, or more parents on assistance. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense. Which is why it seems rather obvious to me that the root of this has nothing to do with money (birth control is MUCH less expensive than prenatal care, delivery, and assistance), and everything to do with the personal opinions on birth control of these politicians. It is no coincidence that the politicians who argue this most are also vehemently against premarital sex and are very religious. Sorry for the tangent.

Most pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, since the pill flushes out embryos and makes the lining of the uterus to thin to allow implantation (in other words causes abortions), we really can't be behind this imitative at all.
A lot of people don't know that the progesterone in he pill causes abortions, IUD like Mirena do too. So those countries just have lower rates of doctor-preformed abortions, not necessarily fewer aborts happening.
We can disagree about the issue, I just thought I'd try to explain one reason why pro-lifers aren't seeing this as any sort of solution.

Off-topic I know, but this is what disturbs me. The politicians who are waging this war against birth control coverage, or birth control in general, are the same ones who want to do away with places like Planned Parenthood. Yes, if I can't afford birth control and the government doesn't want to force insurance companies to cover it, I can go to Planned Parenthood. Except if these politicians had their way, there wouldn't be any Planned Parenthood either. It is this bigger war on women that worries me. If you can't afford birth control and your insurance doesn't cover it and then politicians cut all funding for Planned Parenthood, well what options are left? And I guess you could say just don't have sex, but we all know that won't happen. So instead there will be more abortions, or more kids in foster care, or more parents on assistance. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense. Which is why it seems rather obvious to me that the root of this has nothing to do with money (birth control is MUCH less expensive than prenatal care, delivery, and assistance), and everything to do with the personal opinions on birth control of these politicians. It is no coincidence that the politicians who argue this most are also vehemently against premarital sex and are very religious. Sorry for the tangent.

Exactly. It makes no sense.

This whole thing honestly just really skeeves me out a bit. I think the issue is that BC is about women having sex who don't want to get pregnant. Therefore implying sex outside of marriage. It's hard not to see it as a woman's rights issue as BC became a great sexual equalizer. Now women could have sex just like men did with no worries of pregnancy repercussions. (in theory) It really feels surreal to me to read what is going on with the mostly male politicians and their decisions regarding women's bodies and birth control.

ESPECIALLY when our economy and job situation is so dire, and there are so many other issues that really really need our governments attention.

__________________First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me - Martin Niemöller

Off-topic I know, but this is what disturbs me. The politicians who are waging this war against birth control coverage, or birth control in general, are the same ones who want to do away with places like Planned Parenthood. Yes, if I can't afford birth control and the government doesn't want to force insurance companies to cover it, I can go to Planned Parenthood. Except if these politicians had their way, there wouldn't be any Planned Parenthood either. It is this bigger war on women that worries me. If you can't afford birth control and your insurance doesn't cover it and then politicians cut all funding for Planned Parenthood, well what options are left? And I guess you could say just don't have sex, but we all know that won't happen. So instead there will be more abortions, or more kids in foster care, or more parents on assistance. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense. Which is why it seems rather obvious to me that the root of this has nothing to do with money (birth control is MUCH less expensive than prenatal care, delivery, and assistance), and everything to do with the personal opinions on birth control of these politicians. It is no coincidence that the politicians who argue this most are also vehemently against premarital sex and are very religious. Sorry for the tangent.

Great tangent. I hadn't thought that far ahead, honestly. The picture above does quote all males, too, and I think that is what angers me. It angered me because it does make a woman feel helpless, doesn't it? Thanks for bringing this up.

Free would be not paying a dime for it. $0 copay means I pay the insurance company premiums and part of my benefits is a $0 copay on that prescription. I'm still paying for insurance. It is not free because if I didn't pay that insurance, my copay wouldn't be $0.

My family pays a health insurance premium (almost $300 a month to be exact) and we still have to pay $530 every 3 months for medication...

And it wasn't 'lifestyle' choices that led to my DH being diabetic...unless he was a really bad boy before he could walk...he was diagnosed when he was 13 months old...

Last time I checked no one gave cancer patients their chemo without co-insurance, no one gives diabetics their insulin without a co-pay, no one gives AIDS patients their medications without a co-pay, no one gives heart patients their heart medication without a co-pay. Why should birth control be any different?

When cancer patients, diabetics, transplant patients, AIDS patients....other people with chronic, life threatening illnesses who are lucky enough to have private insurance get ALL of their medication for a $0 copay I'll be okay with birth control being $0 copay until that day I call BS...